Gun Control - Now Discussing Tucson Shooting

I would definitely agree.

 

Re: Using guns to stop mad shooters...

I wonder about the realities of this argument. It goes that if students were armed then one of them would have been able to stop the shooter, but is reality really that clear-cut?

Let's say you own a couple of guns, you shoot regularly at a range, you've a good aim - does any of that mean you will be able to open fire on a human target in a crisis situation? I'd be inclined to say not. People like to say they would, but how are you ever really going to know short of such a situation occuring?

One of the statistics that comes up in regard to Police officers is the rarity of actually shooting someone - and they'll have had extensive training in firearms. The only people who have training in how to shoot with the right mindset to killing the target is the military and that's because it's the nature of the job.

Oh and on the use of the SAS in the embassy siege and other cases: If you act in such a way as to merit their attention, don't expect to survive it - you're playing by big boy rules now.

 

We look at something such as Flight 93, where the passengers rather than cower in fear had built up enough courage to risk and ultimately sacrifice their lives to force the hijacked plane to crash. Their inhuman act of bravery probably stopped the terrorists from flying a suicide mission on George Bush. Now using that logic, if Nick Berg was at Paducha he could have been a hero who stopped the Trenchcoat Mafia. However much of an irony that is this is a very big if. Automatic weapons tend to pull up when fired, revolvers pull to the right, the iron sights on guns should be aimed slightly higher to accurate guide the bullet, these are three things that many people probably do not know about firearms. How will they react under stress? Can they actually aim a firearm? If the person in a position to stop a situation (I'm talking a police officer rather than a civillian) would their training be based on correct procedure or stopping the threat? Something like this would only happen once in a lifetime to someone, if they are unlucky. How would even a trained body react? Would they freeze? Do something wrong? Tunnel? If someone were able to snap react to a situation and perhaps stop a massecre by shooting dead an assailent it would be an extraordinary achievement of human capeability, one that an untrained body perhaps not emulate if it were to try it again a million times over. But if it were to happen then it would illustrate the irony of how there is the push for gun control and yet we had a situation that was defused because someone had used a firearm to put a stop to it.

 

NA,

Your post raises another popular line that I find perplexing, namely that gun control = gun banning, when that's surely not so? Isn't better to have a process whereby the person wishing to own a gun is both deemed responsible enough by the state and themselves understands the responsibility they are seeking?

 

When we look at gun control we have to look at what weapons simply should not be allowed to the public. Sooner or later I am going to submit a character for review for a possible 24 RPG, who may use the new S&W .500 revolver. This gun is second to only this massive two handed monster in terms of stopping power. Now that might be viable for a member of a counterterrorist unit, that might be good for someone in the armed forces. Why would someone in the public need such a powerful handgun? Or take the Barrett Light Fifty, this .50 calibre monster of a sniper rifle can shoot through buildings. The M249 SAW is a highly inaccurate 200 round beast used by the military to supress the enemy while they are picked off by more accurate M16s or Carbine assault rifles. The Heckler & Koch MP5 SDS has an integral silencer, and when you add mods to it such as a scope, high capacity mag, ect, makes it a dream weapon for anyone looking to kill. Why would someone need these weapons? Shotguns, hunting rifles and the like we can understand certainly, however in my mind there are some weapons that are overkill. Governments tend to agree, as there are certain weapons that are not allowed for sale to the public, and after the Port Arthur massecre where Martyn Bryant executed 35 people with a Styer AUG (an assault rifle used by the Australian military) and a number of handguns all automatic and semiautomatic weapons were prohibited from sale.

If we were to look at each weapon based on their merits we can see what reason someone might need or use them for. A Colt 1911 for example, a collector would likely be interested in this, and it's a viable choice for target shooting or self defense, though your laws on carrying a concealed weapon may vary. Same for Berettas, Sigs, H&Ks, Glocks a variety of handguns favored by law enforcement and the military. A Desert Eagle on the other hand would certainly stop an assailent but if you didn't go for the .357 grain that might be too much power. On the other hand if the .38s are still in service it might be time to retire these guns and go for something that they actually still make the parts for. Farmers would need a couple of guns, a shotgun for pest control, say a Remington 870, and a rifle to mercy kill sick animals, typically an old bolt action which is really all they need. Hunters would need rifles too, and if they were after fair game then I can recommend something like the AW50. However if we were to look at something like the PSG-1, SPAS-12 or USP .40, or any type of machine gun, what purpose would these weapons be needed for? Not hunting, spraying an area with rifle fire kind of misses the point. Ditto pest control, you don't want to shoot up your farm to kill rodents. And you'd have to carry a rifle over your shoulder if it were to be used for self defense, and what type of threat would require a Kalashnikoff anyway?

 

I'm against gun use of any kind, and would like to see our society get to the point where guns are no longer seen as a viable option for solving problems, because they perpetuate a system of violence rather than solving problems.

That said, I think that until we get to a point where most of society agrees with me (which isn't the case now), I'm fine with guns being legalized in the United States. I think it's something a society has to decide upon, and if the majority are for it, I can't say they don't have that right. I would, however, argue that we need to tighten up regulations concerning who gets guns and what kinds of guns they are able to get, and we need to increase firearm education for the public.

Morally I'm against totally against it (largely due to my Religion), but I can't say that our laws should be based off of what I personally believe about violence. Society has the right to decide this matter for themselves. I don't think that gun use is an inalienable right, but I think that it's something respectful citizens of any society should be able to decide upon for themselves.

 

I'd point out that guns have a benefit beyond actually shooting someone, they act as a deterant. I do know someone that used the claim of "I've got a gun" to diffuse a situation.

It does also happen that people do end crimes with guns where the criminal is armed. My brother has a friend whose dad (I realise that sounds like an urban legend) owns a jewelry store in California. Two men held him at gunpoint and were robbing him. When one was distracted, he made a grab for the gun, and then following a scuffle, ran to the back of the store where he had his own gun. The end result was he killed one robber, and the other was shot several times. He was unharmed and unrobbed.
As far as school shootings go, a shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in 1991 was ended when the shooter was subdued by two students that were armed. In October of 1997 a school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi ended after a vice principal retrieved his gun from his car and brandished it, ending the shooting without firing a shot.

So I think one can definitely argue that guns can and have been used to avert or end crimes, although the frequency is of much greater difficulty to measure.

Just to note, that claim that they prevented an attack on George Bush is, I'd say, fundamentally incorrect. Flight 93 was heading for the Washington D.C. area (or at least that part of the country roughly) and Bush was in Florida at the time.

 

So I think one can definitely argue that guns can and have been used to avert or end crimes, although the frequency is of much greater difficulty to measure.

One could just as easily argue that the entire reason we have gun-related crimes is that we as a society have decided that gun use is acceptable in the first place. That doesn't mean we should feed into that.

 

That is definitely true, although I think it is also a seperate argument than the part I was contesting, which was if private citizens with guns could end some crimes. Though, there are also instances where guns are used in stopping crimes that aren't gun crimes.

A story from the Sacramento Bee last month, for example, involved a man shooting an intruders in his home that the story at least doesn't list as armed, so I think that means he wasn't. That is a crime that was not a gun crime, but was ended by a gun.

 

Owning but not actually having seen United 93 yet, I am not up on the flight paths the terrorists took and what their likely targets might have been. Perhaps they did not know Bush was not going to be at the White House, or had not retreated to Camp David. The point is the passengers on board summoned up an inhuman amount of bravery to overcome the hijackers, and if we were to use the argument of someone using a gun to stop a mad gunman then this would be a valid point to raise. However one issue that should be pointed out in justifying allowing guns on the basis of someone being able to stop a shooter if they had a gun is that there are too many unknown variables in how someone might act in such a situation. Would they freeze? Develop tunnel vision when trying to aim at a threat? What if their aim is off?

 

Thanks for the explanation. Is there not a difference though between 'security' on the one hand and 'freedom' on the other. Take South Africa for example, that is a democratic country with freedom of press, freedom of speech etc but is also an exremely dangerous place to live in terms of the crime rate and the likelihood of being shot, mugged, kidnapped or raped (or all four). Yet, South Africa has political freedom. Is there an argument that you could set a minimum threshold crime rate which might then justify laws which limit the right to bear arms for self defence?

 

Australia has very stringent gun laws, they had outlawed many types of firearms and I believe it is illegal for concealed weapons to be allowed on the person. They appear to be a rather free country nonetheless. It probably has more to do with the culture and how the country is on a case by case basis than it does with what freedoms and laws there are.

 

Yeah but Australia does not have a Bill of Rights which constitutionally protects a right to bear arms and never will. I'm interested in how the Second Amendment has recently been interpreted and how the right to bear arms for 'self defence' appears to have snuck into the scope of the right. KK's explanation just poses more questions for me.

 

Oh I don't know about never will...their Prime Minister had his nose so far up Bush's ass they were lucky not to rework their laws based on the constitution. But on having the right to bear arms because of it...well I have something to ask those who support the right. Say you end up in a shootout, say you don't get killed. Could you live with having taken someone else's life?

 

That's because everyone knows that Australia is completely populated by criminals, and criminals don't have any rights.

Part of it goes back to English Common Law and the English Bill of Rights from 1689:

Similarly, Blackstone's commentaries (published at about the same time as the passing of the Second Amendment) clearly recognizes a right to self defense. There is a long legal tradition supporting the right to self defense (as connected to a right to keep and bear arms) that carried over to the US when it became independent.

Part of the big difference is because over the last century, Parliament has been exercising its sovereignty in the matter of self defense. Whereas the US Bill of Rights is binding on the government, because the People are considered the sovereigns in the US, Parliament is considered the sovereign in the UK (and those nations that derive their system of government from the UK). As such, Parliament has the authority to pass statutes that contradict and overrule part or all of the English Bill of Rights, because it is not binding upon Parliament.

The English Bill of Rights was enacted by an act of Parliament, and so Parliament has the authority to change it at will. The US Bill of Rights, on the other hand, was enacted by Amendment to the Constitution, by the People. That means that only the People have the authority to change it, following the same process. While the perspective on the right to keep and bear arms has changed in most parliamentary countries, it hasn't similarly changed in the US.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I hope to never need to know the answer for this, but I think so. I'm generally very pacifistic, personally, but I'll also do what it takes to protect innocent people, and I think when you attempt to cause harm on an innocent party intentionally, you willingly sacrifice your own well-being.

 

Yes.

I hope it never comes to that sort of situation, but if that sort of situation does arise... I'd rather deal with that - and the scorn of those who find the notion of self-defense abhorrent for whatever reason.

 

Thanks for the explanation KK. For some reason I thought the 'self defence' aspect of the Second Amendment was a recent development (arising out of the Heller case) but clearly not.

 

One of the things I'm seeing in this discussion that I think we fall prey to in much of society wherever this discussion takes place is the idea that there's only two answers to this problem. We fool ourselves into thinking that it's either I. Have a gun and perpetuate the system of violence when people threaten yourself or other innocents (which I believe is a right everybody has, good or bad), or II. be a pacifist and allow myself and others to die without defending themselves.

I can't stand it when this dichotomy is drawn, because it's not all there is. If I had my druthers, the government would start educating its citizens in creative non-violence techniques, that don't resort to violence, but deal with a threat far more effectively than shooting the criminal will. We've allowed ourselves to think that it's either kill or be kill all the time in those situations, and that simply perpetuates the violence that we're all trying to avoid. We'd do well to broaden our options, I think.

 

I've studied Tae Kwon Do, and plan to learn another martial art as well (probably Judo, if I can find a good teacher in the area). I am familiar with several hand-to-hand techniques that could help me disarm or disable an attacker in the right circumstances. I have been taught several knife fighting techniques, and could probably hold my own for at least a little while, and I've even studied a little fencing. I am also a pretty decent shot with my Colt 45.

None of the techniques I've mentioned is a 100% solution for every situation. In some cases, hand-to-hand engagement would be most prudent, but in others, a firearm would be the only safe answer. Just because I have a gun and know how to use it doesn't mean that it is my first line of defense, nor that it is my only response to a situation. It is, however, another tool at my disposal to protect myself and those around me in the situation requires it.

In fact, learning to shoot requires a lot of discipline, dedication, and self-control. It requires dexterity, endurance, and stamina, especially when you start working with "big bore" handguns (like a 45). It is nowhere near as easy as some people believe, where you just point the gun and pull the trigger. Even at the distance of an average handgun engagement (7-10 feet, IIRC) I have seen people completely miss their target at the range. It takes patience and training just like any other self-defense technique.

It's not some binary thing, where you either pull a gun or let yourself die. There is an entire spectrum to self defense, and it is highly advisable that you learn from as much of that spectrum as you can. More than anything, self defense is about developing a defensive mindset and out-thinking your opponent using the tools available. The primary weapon anyone should learn how to use is their own brain. At that point, you can use almost anything in your surroundings for your defense. (For example, I've always found it funny that they won't let you bring a knife, even a tiny one, on a plane, and yet they have no problem with me bringing my pen set. I know at least 3 ways that I could kill someone with a standard Bic pen, if I had to. All it takes is a little knowledge of anatomy.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

I did Aikido for several years although I wasn't terribly good at it or committed. Its philosophy centers very much around MASTERPRENN's third way: non-violent self defense. I've heard countless stories from Aikido blackbelts whose training gave them the confidence and courage to talk their way out of serious situations without lifting a finger.

A friend of mine is an Aikido instructor and spent a lot of time at an Aikido studio in the D.C. area - I can get the information for you if you're interested, Kimball. His sparring partner there was a former Navy Seal who was well trained in lethal combat techniques but really enjoyed the Aikido approach to combat and defense.

 

There's also the question of proportionality. Self defence should always be proportionate to the threat. If you hear a noise at night, get up to investigate and grab your shotgun, you shouldn't be allowed to just open fire at the person you discover climbing through your window. A person shouldn't necessarily forfeit his/her life simply by breaking in to a home in my opinion.

In terms of break ins, I read stats the other day that indicated that a majority of home robberies in the Sydney area are drug related. They are basically junkies looking for some goods to cash in for their next fix. Depending on their state of mind, pursuasion may simply not work. Physical violence might also be tricky if they are completely crazed. I also wouldn't want to roll around on the ground with a potential HIV/AIDS carrier. I did Judo for many years as a teenager (would have got my black belt had I not been under 16) and I can assure you it is a most pathetic form of self defence. Judo means "gentle way" in Japanese and is basically just a Japanese form of wrestling, there are no kicks or punches. It involves you getting up real close to your opponent (typically your right hand clutches their chest arear and your left hand clutches your opponent's left sleeve)with a view to throwing them to the floor and holding them there.

If I was faced with a drug addict intent on stealing my Metallica collection, the last thing I would want to do is to get too close. I have an aluminium baseball bat that I keep for self defence in the home. That's a nice compromise for me as I could hopefully beat the **** out of any robber without getting too close and hopefully without being charged with my murder if I happened to have a gun and jst opened fire.

 

No, but a man defending his home shouldn't be presumed to be in the wrong just because a burglar ends up with a fatal gunshot wound.

If someone breaks into a house at two in the morning, it's a fair bet that he's not there for a social call. It is also not unreasonable to assume that a person who, when confronted by the armed homeowner, ignores a command to STOP, is out for more than just a burglary.

 

Agreed. You have to give the home owner the benefit of the doubt. If I confronted a burglar at 2.00am who ignored my warnings/commands to stop then I would open fire because at that stage I would consider myself to be in physical danger.

 

Most of the grappling (or "soft") martial arts are considered fairly weak on their own. That's why most self defense experts I've read or talked to recommend that you learn at least two different styles - one "hard" (like Karate or Tae Kwon Do, with the kicking and punching) and one that is "soft" (basically glorified wrestling). The idea is that you have concentric zones around you, and as an opponent violates more and more of those zones, you have more and more tools to deal with them. You can tend to use the "hard" martial arts at a longer range than the "soft" ones, and so the main purpose of leaning the "soft" ones should be to move your opponent out of the closest zone into a more distant one, where you can then use a longer-range solution.

Kimball Kinnison